Archive for the ‘Sapiential eschatology’ Category

LATO believed that the ideal political situation would be a State with citizens neatly divided into Worker, Soldier, and Guardian classes living and working in harmony under the leadership of a philosopher-king, right? Actually there are good grounds to question whether this is what Plato really means in the Republic.

Rather, Plato’s remarks in Republic 2.369b et seq. might be taken as his true view of the ideal political arrangement. There, before he mentions any other kind of government, he proposes a system that we might today call a natural law stateless society (or anarchy — but in the sense of having no government institutions, not social chaos). That is, Plato first proposes that if people were content with simple pleasures, they could live happily, in harmony with each other and with nature, and social affairs could be conducted without institutional government.

In words that call to mind Hesiod’s myth of the Golden Age (Works and Days 109–142), Socrates here says of such a society, “They and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another.” (Rep. 2.372b) He calls this first city the “true and healthy” State.

He elaborates that governments become necessary only when people go beyond necessities and insist on luxuries: delicacies, courtesans, elaborate meals, fancy clothes, and the like (Rep. 2.373a).

His interlocutor, Glaucon, insists that people will not accept such a simple way of life, which he deprecates as a “city of pigs.” Only then does Socrates agree to consider for the remainder of their conversation various forms of the “luxurious State,” which he also calls the fevered or inflamed State (2.372e).

All the famous provisions of the ideal City-State in the Republic — the tripartite division of citizens into Worker, Soldier, and Guardian classes, for example — apply to this second-best State or second city.

Which, then, does Plato recommend? Should we strive for the first, naturalistic city? Or the more luxurious but complex City-State that occupies most of the discussion? Perhaps a clue is found in Socrates’ response to Glaucon’s objection. He never contradicts his original suggestion that the natural city is best. He merely agrees that there is no harm in discussing the luxurious State, because then “we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate.”

Then why, you may ask, does Plato spend so much time in the Republic talking about things like the three classes of citizens, training and education of the Guardians, philosopher-kings, etc.

Possibly because all this pertains to Plato’s use of the Republic as an allegorical analysis of the human psyche, based on the principle of the city-soul analogy. In other words, this later discussion is primarily a psychological allegory — which is the main level at which the Republic is meant to be understood. However — and this is merely a possibility — perhaps Plato could not resist the opportunity to express his true political views briefly, and in an ironic and somewhat cryptic way. Certainly the pacifist themes at the end of these remarks (2.373d-e) would make sense for someone who, as Plato did, grew up during the Peloponnesian War — which was not only pointless to begin with, but resulted in humiliating defeat for Athens, a devastating plague, and massive social upheaval.

But even so, we should also be prepared to interpret this as psychological allegory. Understood in that way, the second city may represent a well-governed soul in search of its lost homeland and its desired state of repose. But once the homeland is reached, happiness is maintained without such strong conscious attention to self-government. That is, one may reach a condition that is the psychic equivalent of Engels’ notion of the withering away of the state (i.e., a perfect utopian society). It might be objected that such a perfect condition is simply impossible — either for an individual or for society — because of imperfections in the nature of each. However in the case of an individual we could allow that such a state may potentially be experienced temporarily (as with a Maslowean peak experience), and, if so, may still be quite valuable for personality integrity and growth. Those familiar with Zen Buddhism might see a possible connection with this mental condition and the 10th image of the Oxherding Pictures (10. ‘Both Vanished’).

Read what Plato wrote and decide for yourself what he means. The passage below is from Benjamin Jowett’s elegant translation of the Republic (1892; italics added). The full citation is: Jowett, Benjamin (ed., tr.). The Dialogues of Plato in Five Volumes. 3rd edition. Vol. 3 – Republic, Timaeus. Oxford, 1892. <http://oll.libertyfund.org/titles/166>

[2.372a]
… Socrates. Let us then consider, first of all, what will be their way of life, now that we have thus established them. Will they not produce corn, and wine, and clothes, and shoes, and build houses for themselves? And when they are housed, they will work, in summer, commonly, stripped and barefoot, but in winter substantially clothed and

[2.372b]
shod. They will feed on barley-meal and flour of wheat, baking and kneading them, making noble cakes and loaves; these they will serve up on a mat of reeds or on clean leaves, themselves reclining the while upon beds strewn with yew or myrtle And they and their children will feast, drinking of the wine which they have made, wearing garlands on their heads, and hymning the praises of the gods, in happy converse with one another. And they will take care that their families do not exceed their means;

[2.372c]
having an eye to poverty or war.

But, said Glaucon, interposing, you have not given them a relish to their meal.

True, I replied, I had forgotten; of course they must have a relish — salt, and olives, and cheese, and they will boil roots and herbs such as country people prepare; for a dessert we shall give them figs, and peas, and beans;

[2.372d]
and they will roast myrtle-berries and acorns at the fire, drinking in moderation. And with such a diet they may be expected to live in peace and health to a good old age, and bequeath a similar life to their children after them.

Yes, Socrates, he said, and if you were providing for a city of pigs, how else would you feed the beasts?

But what would you have, Glaucon? I replied.

Why, he said, you should give them the ordinary conveniences of life. People who are to be comfortable are accustomed to lie on sofas,

[2.372e]
and dine off tables, and they should have sauces and sweets in the modern style.

Yes, I said, now I understand: the question which you would have me consider is, not only how a State, but how a luxurious State is created; and possibly there is no harm in this for in such a State we shall be more likely to see how justice and injustice originate. In my opinion the true and healthy constitution of the State is the one which I have described. But if you wish also to see a State at fever-heat, I have no objection.

[2.373a]
For I suspect that many will not be satisfied with the simpler way of life. They will be for adding sofas, and tables, and other furniture; also dainties, and perfumes, and incense, and courtesans, and cakes, all these not of one sort only, but in every variety; we must go beyond the necessaries of which I was at first speaking, such as houses, and clothes, and shoes: the arts of the painter and the embroiderer will have to be set in motion, and gold and ivory and all sorts of materials must be procured.

[2.373b]
True, he said.

Then we must enlarge our borders; for the original healthy State is no longer sufficient. Now will the city have to fill and swell with a multitude of callings which are not required by any natural want; such as the whole tribe of hunters and actors, of whom one large class have to do with forms and colours; another will be the votaries of music—poets and their attendant train of rhapsodists, players, dancers, contractors; also

[2.373c]
makers of divers kinds of articles, including women’s dresses. And we shall want more servants. Will not tutors be also in request, and nurses wet and dry, tirewomen and barbers, as well as confectioners and cooks; and swineherds, too, who were not needed and therefore had no place in the former edition of our State, but are needed now? They must not be forgotten: and there will be animals of many other kinds, if people eat them.

[2.373d]
Certainly.

And living in this way we shall have much greater need of physicians than before?

Much greater.

And the country which was enough to support the original inhabitants will be too small now, and not enough?

Quite true.

Then a slice of our neighbours’ land will be wanted by us for pasture and tillage, and they will want a slice of ours, if, like ourselves, they exceed the limit of necessity,

[2.373e]
and give themselves up to the unlimited accumulation of wealth?

That, Socrates, will be inevitable.

And so we shall go to war, Glaucon. Shall we not?

Most certainly, he replied.

Then, without determining as yet whether war does good or harm, thus much we may affirm, that now we have discovered war to be derived from causes which are also the causes of almost all the evils in States, private as well as public.

Undoubtedly.

And our State must once more enlarge;

[2.374a]
and this time the enlargement will be nothing short of a whole army, which will have to go out and fight with the invaders for all that we have, as well as for the things and persons whom we were describing above.

The soul-state homology posits a close connection between the individual soul and political organizations like a city and state. The relationship is stronger than a mere analogy. Rather, soul and state are seen as two expressions of a common archetype ; or that the state’s affairs are outward expressions or materializations of the soul’s affairs. The phrase, ‘as within, so without’ explains the notion succinctly. Whatever happens within your own soul is paralleled by events and processes at the societal level.

Expressions of this homology can be found in various spiritual and philosophical traditions. In the West, its most elaborate and articulate presentation is found in Plato’s Republic. The same general idea can be found in various Eastern religions, and elsewhere.

If true, the homology has important practical implications.

First, the it implies a distinct view of how one thinks of oneself in relation to society. Today especially, idealistic people take a keen interest in the world. The avidly read the news, identify problems, and remain in a state of irritation or outrage. This easily becomes a preoccupation approaching an obsession with the world’s affairs and problems.

The soul-state homology, however, suggests a different, more appropriate response: if society has problems and is unjust, these same problems must exist within the personal soul. The soul, not society, is our first concern: because the soul is closer to us, because we are uniquely responsible for its cultivation and integrity, and because it is immortal. If something should preoccupy us, then, it should be concern about the integrity and welfare of our soul. It is by tending to the soul that we find happiness.

Moreover, to the extent that disorders in a nation are manifestations of disorders of soul, then by concentrating our attention on self-knowledge and self-improvement, we are more likely to effect positive changes in society.

An extension of this principle is that the main purpose of the material world is to teach us about our souls. Thus, if we look to politics and see strife and discord between ‘left’ and ‘right’, the purpose of that is to alert us and teach us about some corresponding internal conflict.

A second implication of the homology concerns charity. At some level, all other people — at least insofar as we perceive and experience them — are manifestations of ourselves. And since the ideal of a perfect soul is one where all elements are harmoniously ordered and united in concern for the welfare of the entire self, so this must also be true of society.

It therefore becomes impossible or even absurd to deny the entitlement of any other person to ones love, or to seek a social system that is not perfectly just and fair.

This, in turn, suggests that one function of society and social institutions is to supply an arena for action: a field laboratory, as it were, for the soul’s alchemy. By working to help other people or to make society more just, we simultaneously engage in a kind of healthy transformative medicine or magic in our souls.

So much, then, for theoretical speculation; ultimately, the soul-state homology is the kind of idea that will either appeal to one or not. Either way, not much can be said here to make it appear more or less plausible than it already is.

Rather, let’s consider what the homology would imply today:

Your soul is in crisis, and has been for about 10 years.

War is threatening to break out between your inner United States and your inner Iran.

An old order, based on money, materialism and social disparity is decaying. A new order is emerging.

You have some kind of internal government (with Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches).

Your internal government has been co-opted by selfish special interests.

A resistance movement has developed, but is currently poorly organized and lacks a clear vision of the future.

You have the inner equivalent of news sources, but these supply false opinions, rather than true facts. You have an inner Fox News, CNN, etc.

Your inner citizens are polarized into two diametrically opposed camps: ‘progressives’ and ‘conservatives.’ Each camp demonizes and blames the other for everything wrong.

This conflict is promoted by special interests, who use the inner government and inner news sources for this purpose.

We could go on, but this is enough to convey the general idea and sufficient food for thought.

What, then, would be the practical implications? Clearly, if our individual souls are as troubled and messy as the outside world today, then we need to focus a great deal of attention on cleaning house! The homology suggests we should redouble efforts toward self-improvement. It also means that, while we can learn much from the world, we should retain the ability to be detached from it. If we let worry over injustice or war upset our thinking, and place our minds under the control of fear and anger, rather than clear reason, then we are unable to focus attention on self-improvement, which is where our attention should be.

One further feature of the soul-state homology might encourage us. A standard tenet of religion is that, while one has a personal moral responsibility to apply oneself to self-improvement, ultimately improvement comes by grace from a Supreme Being.

This makes sense. To the extent that we are fallen, or perhaps simply immature, we are not wise enough to direct our own spiritual and moral growth. Help must come from a higher source.

Our attitude, then, must be one of humility. While we intensely want to change for the better — if, for no other reason, than because our life is filled with frustration and unfulfilled hopes — this must not manifest itself as an egoistic striving, which only makes matters worse. Our personal responsibility is not to change ourselves, as much as to choose to cooperate with grace for our self-improvement.

A similar humility, then, should govern our approach to the outside world. We should believe that a higher power already has a benevolent plan; and we should trust and cooperate with this plan, chiefly by removing whatever obstacles we ourselves are presenting to its attainment.

[This was written in 2008. More recent posts on Plato’s Republic can be found here.]

A fairly little-known fact is that Plato’s Republic, a work often taught in government and political science classes, is really about psychology. If you read the Republic closely, you see that Plato (through the character of Socrates) introduces the ideal State as a metaphor for the human soul. The idea is to, using the familiar example of a city, discover the principles by which harmony and justice are achieved; these same principles can then be applied, Plato suggests, to the individual (Republic, 2.368d)

A central message of the Republic is this. The soul consists of many individual members (appetites, drives, desires, etc.). Discord and strife result from these members working selfishly and at cross-purposes. Peace and harmony are attained when the soul is not governed by transitory drives and desires, but instead continually looks to something higher — wisdom — for guidance; that is the true meaning Plato’s famous term, the philosopher king. This does not mean some kind of enlightened social leader, but rather a person (you or me) who has achieved a new psychological structure: that of being ruled by love of wisdom.

Wisdom, for Plato, is not mere knowledge, but something divine. Wisdom, for him, comes from God. Further, it is closely related to Beauty, and Goodness itself. A fact readily ignored in modern universities is that Plato was an explicitly religious writer. There is a remarkable similarity, in fact, between Plato’s model and the psychological model found in the New Testament. We see this clearly in the letters of St. Paul to the Romans and Ephesians, and especially the letter of James.

A point made by Plato, Paul, and James alike is that wars and external conflicts reflect internal conflicts. James 4:1 says, From whence come wars and fightings among you? come they not hence, even of your lusts that war in your members?.

People sometimes read this and get hung up on the word, “lusts”, thinking this is just religious moralizing. Actually, the Greek word is hedone, or pleasures — a much more general term — so one may see that this is quite a broad principle.

James, again like Plato, also distinguishes between earthly wisdom and the wisdom that is from above. The former corresponds to the false reasoning we typically engage in — conclusions that masquerade as prudent ones, but which are actually formed by appetites and desires. These are what modern psychologists might call rationalizations. In contrast is true wisdom, which, among other things, is experienced as coming ‘from above.’ Earthly ‘wisdom’ is ego-generated, something one constructs oneself: one knows the conclusion in advance, then selects facts and arguments to support the conclusion. True wisdom, however, is experienced more as inspiration — a subtle whisper, a revelation, an unearned insight. Whether its source is God directly, or our higher self, the point is that it comes a source above our competing and conflicting appetites.

So how does this relate to Elections 2008? Quite directly, in fact. The problem is that peoples’ thinking about the election is dominated by ‘earthly wisdom’. People have set up, for example, spam agents to automatically add defamatory news articles about candidates as comments to blogs like mine. I’ve had to partially disable comments, in fact (but that’s not really a problem). These spammers evidently feel they are doing a service by posting such articles. That is, they think they’re being wise. They’ve confused earthly and true wisdom.

Then what is true wisdom as it applies to the forthcoming elections? That isn’t hard to figure out. Wisdom, Plato and the New Testament tell us, is recognized by its ability to harmonize the disparate and potentially contending drives and desires of human nature. It always seeks the welfare of all. Further, it presupposes that there is a way to achieve happiness, and that we’re designed to be in that state. There is a natural way, in other words, for the desires and drives to be in balance.

What we obviously seek in life are peace and happiness. That isn’t going to happen in society unless and until it happens in our own souls. Within each of our souls are inner Democrats and inner Republicans, vying for control. (Maybe the inner Democrats want pleasure, and the inner Republicans want money — a simplistic model, but perhaps not too far from the truth.) All the contention, anger, mudslinging, and name-calling you see in the current elections is mirrored within your own psyche. External politics is ultimately a projection of inner politics.

How do you find peace of soul? By letting yourself be governed by true wisdom, which is characterized by humility, love, and genuine concern for the welfare of others. Discover your higher sources of knowledge, and stop being led by emotional reasoning. The latter does not reflect your welfare, but rather the narrow purposes of particular appetites and drives.

If we do this individually, we’ll likely find that our external political solutions are not as difficult as we currently make them out to be. In any case, we’ll certainly see the absurdity of all this political fighting.

Reference

The best literature review and discussion of the allegorical/psychological interpretation of Plato’s Republic is: